I've got a couple of questions for Jonathan

Stated "The trouble now is that we cannot even reform minimally to get any economic traction. Witness the opposition to the Productivity Commission’s interim view on eradicating penalty payments. So many uninformed would rather a country where less Australians find well paid work rather than more Australians find not-so-well paid work."

I'll accept your statements as an economist, but I'm sure if you were a trade unionist you'd have a different opinion on penalty rates.

Why as an economist is it good to eradicate penalty payments?

Why would you label the people who oppose this measure on penalty rates as uninformed?

Australians have been informed.
They've been told that for new home owners the dream of owning their own home is getting harder and harder.

Why do economists talk of a need for more immigration?

For Economists
Why should regular people have regard for economists who assume to know better, but who also failed to insulate the country against the GFC and are probably responsible for the financial mess in the world in the first place?

If they're so smart why cant they create a foolproof plan?

For Baby Boomers
You had a better work ethic than following generations but you also had better opportunities.
You worked hard for this country and deserve a decent retirement, but in saying that, I'm not sure you handed the country down to the next generation in a state better than you found it.

Younger Australians are will pay a huge price in health costs as Baby Boomers pass away.
But governments want to give them more money through super (dollar for dollar) for holidays in retirement.
Why is this?

If a deficit exists between income and expenses every week (referring to the economy) is it not fair to target wasteful spending as much as the need to earn more?

Why is it a rich businessman can buy a 250k Porshe and write it off on tax?
Is this what Australians should give up their penalty rates for?
So more businessmen can get more free Porche's??

Rhosty, you say “If Sunday penalty rates are to go they should go for everyone not the lowest paid battlers in the country"!
I agree.

Armchair: you say, with regards to my comment on penalty rates that

"I'll accept your statements as an economist, but I'm sure if you were a trade unionist you'd have a different opinion on penalty rates".

The problem is that most union leaders are focussed on maximising the pay and conditions of their members even if that comes at the cost of new members.

You ask "Why would you label the people who oppose this measure on penalty rates as uninformed”?

Simply because they don’t think too far ahead. Surely an economy should prioritise finding work for all those who want to work as well as prioritise the maintenance of social harmony. Ensuring maximum pay for the few ignores those two other objectives.

Also maintaining wages higher than what can be sustained in a competitive economy the long run will only delay the inevitable.

You want proof? Go grocery shopping and you’ll see as I have that most foods are made overseas (in my case China, Germany and NZ). Why? Because in many cases Australian workers are too expensive.

As for your comment "They've been told that for new home owners the dream of owning their own home is getting harder and harder”. I agree and the fault lies with successive governments whose focus is either to maximise state taxes (in the case of the states) or minimise unemployment numbers by mopping up building industry workers construct properties for foreign buyers. Local buyers young and old are not their concern. Sadly.

As to your comment on " a need for more immigration”. Many economists agree that more migrants is better. I however question not the numbers involved but (a) what type of immigrant and (b) what’s in it for Australia by allowing some folk to immigrate.

BTT.

Another bail-out deal for Greece has been announced, $ 86 billion.

Fascinating. So a party which was determined to carry out a Gramscian 'march through the institutions', i.e. the destruction of capitalism and its institutions, has been rescued by those institutions.

Oh well, other ways can be found. Same-sex 'marriage' might help it along. Anti-coal. Save the bony-arsed skink, and the cross-eyed Mittagong snail. Bike paths under each city. Make it up as you go along. Anything, as long as it cripples any post-Enlightenment initiative, and can take us back to the dark ages.

Joe

For Greece to be free to stand on its feet, Greece must be free of the oppressor. The dichotomy of the oppressor and the oppressor is not only a modernist theme however ontological and phenomenological historically. It was Heidegger who effectively stated that people should never be the property of people however people often act in ways where people are property - at best people are the property of freedom. Therefore there is a theft of spirit and not only the impost of indenture and slavery.

Gerry Georgatos